I have no experience with licensing. I used GitHub to put a license in one of my repositories, which basically uses C. As I didn't want to impose restrictions (the code is a very small utility, I don't even care if someone wants to copy my code), I chose the one that was listed as 'most permissive' - MIT.
Now, I wanted to distribute my code as binaries as well. The code uses no external libraries except for the linux glibc (
libc.so.6). So, I used the option
-static while compiling with
gcc, so that the binaries do not complain on not finding proper versions of glibc. Now, I read somewhere that I will now have to use GPL license (or the one glibc uses). I can do this, but I don't really want to because I am a hobbyist programmer and hence want to keep it as permissive as I can; the program itself is very small.
So, my questions are-
- Which license will I have to include after using static linking (LGPL-2.1, I suppose)?
- Can the source code be licensed under MIT and binaries under the license used by glibc?
- If the answer to (2) is yes, then is there any program that automates the process?
EDIT: I found this in one of the headers (which seems to be seem in all; this one is from
The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
Lesser General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
The same I find at Copying (The GNU C Library). So, it turns out that glibc uses